Concept of "Limited Government" Is Right-Wing Bunk: Try to Find Anything Like It in the Constitution

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/exposed-why-right-wings-interpretation-constitution-can-only-be-believed-if-you-havent-read-it


The Cato Institute’s Handbook for Policy Makers says, “The American system was established to provide limited government.” The American Enterprise Institute states its purpose to “defend the principles” of “limited government.” The Heritage Foundation claims its mission is to promote “principles of … limited government.” A multitude of Tea Party associations follow suit.

At first glance the concept of “limited government” seems like a no-brainer. Everybody believes the power of government should be limited somehow. All those who think totalitarianism is a good idea raise your hand. But there is one problem with the ultra-conservatives’ “limited government” program: it is wrong. It is not just a little bit wrong, but demonstrably false.

The Constitution was never intended to “provide limited government,” and furthermore it did not do so. The U.S. government possessed the same constitutional power at the moment of its inception as it did yesterday afternoon.

This is not a matter of opinion, but of literacy. If we want to discover the truth about the scope of power granted to federal government by the Constitution, all we have to do is read what it says.

[Dwayne Hicks]

1. Thats easy...

Their answer for everything is the 10th amendment. In their minds that is the only amendment that means anything at all. Well except for the 2nd amendment. See to tea bagger extremists its perfectly fine if a STATE passes over bearing and discriminatory laws, thats "freedom" and "liberty". But if the federal government does it then its a dictatorship. Its a silly idea they cling to.

[Thinkingabout]

2. They believe in "limited goverment" is limited to issues in their platform. Limits placed on the

Pro-choice, marriage equality, minimal wages, tax cuts to the 90% and welfare only to their friends in the corporate world.

[Dwayne Hicks]

3. True

This as well. Its sad so many people buy into their trash.

[JM42]

4. There isn't anything in the Constitution about that.

[Igel]

5. I dislike self-serving fools.

Two points. That the US Constitutional doesn't provide for limited government. And that the Constitutional authority of the US government--except through Constitutional amendments--hasn't changed.

Both are false.

In a nutshell ...

1. We have enumerated powers. If they're enumerated and all other powers are off limits, barring constitutional amendments, then the power is limited.

The NSA spying mess is entirely appropriate here. Does the 4th Amendment grant the government the authority to intrude that much in our private affairs? This writer has to scoff at the idea. That would be a limit on federal authority, and there are no limits imposed by the Constitution. Whatever the search and seizure clause may do, it does not limit Federal authority. Sorry, that's reductio ad absurdum. The Constitution limits not by using the word "limit" but by actually limiting.

2. Liberals like to use the term "living Constitution" to obviate the need for continual Constitutional amendments. Even conservatives like to say that even an originalist take on the Constitution allows for adaptation to new contexts, in keeping with the original intent of the authors to the extent possible.

This guy is a mix. There are two parts to every law: There's the text, which doesn't really change. Then there's the interpretation, which can be rather fluid. In the FISA/NSA mess, we have the law not change as the court redefines "relevant." Voila--suddenly what was illegal becomes legal. Same with Roe v Wade, where privacy was suddenly discovered in the Constitution. This writer intends for every interpretation to have been original intent. After all, the Constitutional authority granted to the federal government--not the text, but the actual authority--has not changed. Right.

Lau found that a free and appropriate education was a civil right, and this extended to bilingual education (but only if there were enough speakers of the language in question). The county I grew up in didn't even have a public school until 104 years after the Constitution was ratified. And during those years there were waves of immigrants from different countries. Wow. You'd think that the failure to provide a free and appropriate education would have been noticed during all that time. And perhaps those who wrote the Constitution might have been a bit clearer in requiring that a system of public schools be set up and bilingual teachers hired. No. That right sprang into existence. The Constiution's language didn't change, except by amendment. But suddenly a right to an education was there.

Take the VRA. Article 4 was completely Constitutional. The federal government was fully authorized to have veto power over changes to election practices in those jurisdictions. Moreover, the federal government has always had that authority. The writers clearly intended for them to have that authority.

Oops! Now the federal government *doesn't* have the authority, because the unlimited authority granted by the Constitution apparently doesn't extend to that. Moreover, the author would say, the federal government has always been denied that authority. It's authority hasn't ever changed, after all. And while the writers of the Constitution clearly intended the government to have that authority, they also clearly intended for the government, in exercise of unlimited authority, to not have that authority.

In other words, the writer insists that A = not A be true at the same time in the same context, and not even in a state of quantum uncertainty.

I'll stop there. This dead horse has been beaten to pink slime.